If you could make a wish on behalf of The City 2.0, what would it be?

Today, TED announces the winner of the 2012 TED Prize: the City 2.0. The City 2.0 is the city of the future ... a future in which more than 10 billion people on planet Earth must somehow live sustainably, together. The City 2.0 is not a sterile utopian dream, but a real-world upgrade tapping into humanity's collective wisdom. The City 2.0 promotes innovation, education, culture and economic opportunity. The City 2.0 reduces the carbon footprint of its occupants and eases the environmental pressure on the world's rural areas. The City 2.0 is a place of beauty, wonder, excitement, inclusion, diversity, life. The City 2.0 is the city that works.

A range of visionaries around the world will be advocates on behalf of the City 2.0. We are listening to them -- and to you.

What is your wish for The City 2.0? A wish capable of igniting a massive collaborative project among the members of the global TED community, and indeed all who care about our planet's future.

Share it below.

Comment deleted

Dec 6 2011:
The goals of the Venus Project are admirable and inspiring.

Unfortunately, the actual ideas it proposes fall flat on the ground, and its very approach to solving the problems of our civilization violates the most important principle of viable transformation: solutions to complex, interdependent problems can not be imposed by a grand design, but must evolve in a competitive, creative environment where new ideas can be tested, failed, re-engineered and re-launched quickly.

Venus project thinking is also utterly blind to the most important phenomena of our times - the exponential growth of knowledge and technology. Its obsession with the removal of obsolescence is entirely self-defeating.

Lastly, the Venus Project utterly ignores everything we are learning about human nature from the sciences of evolutionary and social psychology as well as behavioral economics and ethics.

Perhaps the Venus Project can be a great foundation for a StarTrek-like TV series about the future where humanity has transcended its limitation, but it is no more than a fantasy.

That said, anyone who has a couple of hours of free time will enjoy exploring the Venus Project as a fun intellectual exercise in critical thinking.

Dec 6 2011:
Michael: Agreed that the Venus Project’s “grand design” approach is overly ambitious. On the other hand, isn’t there a place for urban planning? Haven’t some examples of cooperative community organization been successful? I mean, think of cities which you might enjoy living in. Haven’t government based initiatives played an important role in making those cities appealing?

So where/how do we draw the line between centralized planning and distributed decision making?

EDIT:

So what exactly is "City 2.0"? Is it anything like Web 2.0? That is, all hype and no substance?

Dec 6 2011:
This is not an conflict of urban planning vs. ad-hock development...

Rather: how can the goals of urban planning be achieved through evolutionary design methods -- light on ideology and heavy on experimentation and feedback -- what might be called "scientific governance."

Having a vision (think Steve Job's OSX / iOS ecosystem) helps, but it is evolved over time with market feedback -- and occasional surprises.

Dec 7 2011:
Tim, check out my response above, but I believe that TED is discussing, as Michael is pointing out, that CITY 2.0 is not a zero-base, start-from-scratch-masterplanned city as much as a "real-world upgrade."

Simply put, as shiny and clean as Venus Project's ideas are, they are more futurist than real-world. $100,000 won't go a long way to buy his magnetic rail systems and polymer houses.

TED is looking for what massive impacts we and our collective innovations can do right now. I lay some of that out above.

You asked for a link so i thought i'd share! I did a project a while ago for the Living Building Challenge that did precisely this...where we tried to imagine a world where distributed decision-making was the norm and where the broad stroke efforts at sustainability and collective community didn't completely mask the individual's expression (which a lot of master planning inadvertantly does). I posted earlier but it feels like this thread has become more about proselytizing and "the venus project" than it is about throwing ideas around. I don't claim to have all the answers but i will claim to have worked my tail off trying to arrive at a visual presentation that describes precisely what you've referred to (the winter image comes the closest). I hope you take a look, read a bit, and enjoy! I won't be insulted if it's nothing more than a few hours of critical thinking :) All the better!

Dec 6 2011:
I really think that the venus project is a possible way of living with some changes. It is a great vision of what can be, and I think that in some countries, they have adopted a little of that style of living. It really brings forth a closer community and convenience. It could be a lifestyle for some people I think and I also like the option of having what we got as well.

You have just arrived at the very underpinning tenet of The Venus Project.

As someone who has applied some critical thinking to TVP I notice that most of the points you raise seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what the Venus Project is about.

For eg. the anti obsolescence point assumes that products would not develop however TVP merely advocates that innovation should be freed from corporate ties allowing it to develop exponentially which I believe was exactly what you are calling for.

So perhaps the critical analysis will take more than 'a couple of hours' ;)

Dec 7 2011:
Mercury Boy - Your comment comes closest to nailing it, and I really appreciate that you focused our attention on a key issue. What is utterly broken in the USA and many other countries is the political system, not the economic system (i.e. capitalism). Corrupted elections and bureaucracies are effectively run by bribery of special interests - from corporations down to teachers unions. The "revolving door" system makes it possible for supposedly "public servants" to go in and out of private sector, collecting time-shifted compensation from corporations - another form of bribery. Finally, mostly utterly ignorant, uneducated population votes for candidates they feel comfortable having a beer with, rather than carefully considering their character and qualifications.

The TVP will be up against the same challenges in order to make the transition - it assumes a very large group of highly educated individuals to run the proposed system. The problem is, there is no pathway proposed to get from here to there: first, it is impossible to vote TVP in because it is counter intuitive to at least 80% of the population, and even if it had George Clooney as the winning candidate, it would suffer the same fate as the Obama administration - gradual dilution of principles and ideas under the pressure to compromise with the status quo, sliding back into corruption and inefficiency.

Competition works because no single group ever has the complete answer. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and FaceBook are transforming global business and culture in a hugely positive direction precisely thanks to ruthless competition and responses to each other's successes and failures.

There is another comment elsewhere about TVP emerging in time of global meltdown crisis. I will answer it there

Dec 7 2011:
I believe evolution is a constant trial and error process, the "strongest survive."

I also believe that we have the capabilities for trials, with the errors being at no cost of lives. Granted, IF, that is the common goal of man one day. Which is not near in site.

However if the aim/goal/ambition/path is to make the world run on reusable energy, Eco-friendly, equal for all, unified, whatever... V.P project has already pieced together a lot of details, considerations, and designs for those altruistic goals.

It's really sci fi when you think about it, because everyone would ultimately have to reject the mass educations of civilization, then sacrifice, in order for the future. The immediate transaction from here to V.P is indeed ridiculous.

I think therefore I am - > mass mimetic-education involved in multiculturalism - > we think therefore we are

Jacque Fresco is just a bright guy with a good idea, I am sure he wouldn't care if you named the idea "take a dump in your hand and throw it on the ground for soil." He, I and many TEDsters would enjoy this goal. Instead of nay saying and then saying "..anyone who has a couple of hours of free time will enjoy exploring the Venus Project as a fun intellectual exercise in critical thinking."

How about critical thinking the details that are in the way of making now to something LIKE-V.P Instead of dictating what is wrong with something that is a little bit more complex than 2000 characters.

Point A - It does ignore modern cognitive sciences data, BUT it is also a really old idea. I posted it myself because it has surpasses just science, it's another artists desire of the future, which maybe science fiction in practical implications, but so was flying vehicles, which we have, "airplanes."

Point B - A good REAL education would provide means for the anticipation and nature to question new information. Also the anti-nature of "self" to become "individual anarchist."

Dec 7 2011:
Michael I'm afraid you have misunderstood or not have done thorough research on the ideas proposed by The Venus Project.
First of all you are confusing the overarching concepts with the city, transportation etc. designs themselves. The former are those that are important and the latter will be constantly updated. It's not a static societal model that's being proposed, but an emergent one. TVP designs will have to be tested and improved continuously as new methods, materials etc. are found.
As far as your claim regarding competitive environment being the most important principle for viable transformation, I would have to disagree. There are two types of competition in regards to species. Intraspecific and interspecific competition. Biologists tell us that species with extensive intraspecific competition have either become extinct or are under extinction. I would suggest looking at cooperation within the species if you want to achieve long term sustainability.

You mention:
"Venus project thinking is also utterly blind to the most important phenomena of our times - the exponential growth of knowledge and technology. Its obsession with the removal of obsolescence is entirely self-defeating."
I have not seen any signs of that at all. On the contrary as I mentioned above, TVP mentions about how science and technology are racing forward but human values have stayed behind and haven't kept up. The intrinsic and planned obsolescence of the market system is a reality and leads to enormous waste of resources, having profit as the underlying principle.
Technological obsolescence which occurs due to advancements, is dealt with modular design methods that embrace change.

Dec 7 2011:
OK... Where to begin addressing the mountain of ignorance and inexperience...?

You are able to have this argument with me on a computer that did not cost you a fortune and is super easy to use thanks to the ruthless, profit-motivated competition between Apple, Microsoft and Google. That competition (and cooperation of engineers within these corporations) also gave birth to the iPhone, the iPad and now the Kindle Fire - at $200 a pop!

"Cooperation" and "philanthropy" delivered the cute green turd of a laptop known as the OLPC. But where is OLPC 2.0 - the tablet?

It was a noble cause, but now it appears to have been entirely unnecessary. The private, competitive IT industry will deliver less and less expensive, reliable, high-performance tablets to the entire world in the next few years that any peasant will be able to figure out how to use. In hindsight, I'm embarrassed that I supported that approach when it was presented and promoted at TED. Yes, OLPCs served well the kids who got them and it brought tears to my eyes to see it happen, however, in the bigger picture, where we need to serve billions of children, it was nothing but an irrelevant blip. OLPC engineers might have contributed more to humanity by working at "greedy" Apple, Google or Amazon.

Dealing with "technological obsolescence through modular design methods that embrace change"... ? ARE YOU KIDDING US?

How do you "modularize" your way from a MacBookPro to an iPhone or an iPad?
From oil-extraction based economy to a bio-solar?

Exponential growth of technology is necessarily destructive in that it ruthlessly obsoletes older technologies and products. Now, planning for closed-loop recycling is an entirely different issue - again solved by profit motivated industries hungry for raw materials.

Best advice - watch the entire TED archive (as I did, more than once) and then try to compare, contrast and learn. Exactly the exercise in critical thinking previously suggested. :)

Dec 8 2011:
yes profit is what makes technology evolve, but its not the monetary profit, its the profit of having better and easier life..
humans probably had to use money in the past, but its not the case anymore, there is nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise, as someone who got burned waaaaaay too much from capitalism i can see a much better world without money, and its not a dream, its a choice that people have to make..
money is false, money is a lie, money is just a paper or a number that means debt to someone..
money is the way to take resource from the poor and give it to the rich, it is a weapon for mass slavery and for controlling people's life, nothing more than that..
it doesnt make our world spin, its not the material needed to make houses, roads, cars and food, the opposite is true, it is the material that makes most of the people in the world to not be able to get these things.
and if you ask me its a crime to make a system that there are people who cant get the things they need for living, like the monetary system is.

in a fully sustainable city there is no need for money or purchasing power in any form..
there is only the need to educate everyone so they can live with the system in peace.

people wont need to own cars, or other stuff (like homes), they will be able get it where they need it and when they need it, they will be able to be reasonable with other people cause they wont have a monetary incentive to F#$K each other.
people will care for other people, cause they dont have to take money from them by doing something the other guy wont like, no more robberies, no more murders, no more stealing, no more crime..

this is city 2.
anything else that use the current system (capitalism and democracy(lie)) is city 1.001

Dec 7 2011:
Looks and sounds like you have a vested interest in dissing the venus project Michael. You are part of the Integrity Capitalism Network?? I don't know too much about it to be honest, but it sounds like you are a capitalist, do you honestly think capitalism works?? It Certainly does for a lot of rich people, but the needy in society [1billiion+] deserve a better system than capitalism. It has failed as a social experiment and we need a new updated system that has no vested interests.

The Venus Project is against the monetary system which creates endless amounts of suffering. Our values need to come up to par with our technology, at the moment we have the tail wagging the dog...

I an not "dissing the Venus Project" but actually encouraging people to learn and think more about it -- both its noble goals and its hopelessly childish solutions. The value of the Venus Project is the conversation it has started.

Capitalism and the monetary system have already succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its inventors, and are the key reasons we actually have 7 billion living on this planet. Despite the many shortcomings of its present implementation, capitalism works and is resilient. in fact, TED is built on, and is sponsored 100% by the fruits of capitalism.

However, at present capitalism works like MS-DOS in the world that deserves an iOS -- it must and will evolve. WIthout breakthroughs in IT it was impossible to institute pervasive transparency that would keep individuals from violating integrity - as they do under any other system. To make capitalism work better and overcome its shortcomings (periodic cycles of boom and bust driven by fraud and speculation) we must embrace complexity. Integrity Capitalism Network is one possible systemic solution to address the key shortcomings of capitalism as we experience it today.

Talk of "values" is noting but hot air - human nature will not change until much further in the future when we start tinkering with our own DNA. However, today we can change human behavior by making sure that every time businessmen promise one thing and then deliberately do another to rip off consumers or damage the environment, they wind up paying a price orders of magnitude greater than what they stood to gain through their transgressions.

To bring this conversation back to the intended themes - City 2.0 -- radical transparency made possible through IT and legislative solutions, in my opinion, will be the key enabling component for the growth of sustainable, equitable and prosperous cities of the future that we have an opportunity to invent and evolve today.

Dec 7 2011:
Hi there Michael. Please don't feel attacked but what you say about the venus project shows perfectly that you don't know much about it and that you didn't loose any time trying to. Try to understand what they wish to achieve, how and their goals and proposals in general. please,at least before speaking and not agreeing with it learn about it, then if you still don't agree, fine. at least then you can be sure you don't agree even after you understood it and you can even send them your sugestions and let them know why you think it won't work and why. Maybe they find your ideas logical and interesting and might help them get ideas to change something either in technical parts or their goals... They are open to sugestions and feedback I can assure you but without being well informed about it maybe better to just say you don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. Cheers.

Dec 8 2011:
I was actually absolutely captivated by TVP when I first discovered it in 2008 and spent over 40 hours learning about since then, downloading and reading all of their published literature, watching presentations and videos of meeting, etc. The more I learned the more disappointing it became - none of TVP's core concepts could stand up to rigorous evaluation. However, I have not looked at it in almost a year and should take a fresh look....

Dec 8 2011:
Ed, I don't have a particularly strong opinion of the Venus project one way or another, but one remark I feel deserves some clarification. Desire is the cause of suffering....not money. Even if the monetary system were removed, I'm afraid it would simply be replaced by another troublesome factor that would perpetuate this problem for humanity.

Dec 7 2011:
Unfortunately your derogatory labels seem to serve no purpose to support your arguments.
It's ironic that you suggest to watch the archives of TED talks.
Have you watched Clay Shirky's talks? Daniel Pink's talk?
Have you researched on the work of Alfie Kohn?
They talk about the exact opposite things that you talk about.
Have a look at Linux, Wikipedia and open source software and hardware and then come and talk about the profit motive.

You are confusing the deliberate obsolescence from industry (intrinsic, planned and perceived) and and the obsolescence due to technological advancements. These are two entirely different things.
The ignorant person that writes this post, suggests you to spend 50 minutes of your time and watch this documentary devoted to planned obsolescence:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1xt4nEvipg

I'm really sorry my friend that you are locked into the market doctrine box and deny to see the evidence that supports something other than your closely held beliefs.

Dec 7 2011:
This is drifting way off the subject of the question, so I'll try to bring it back.

1) Don't watch TEDTalks to agree with everything being presented, but to educate yourself about a broad spectrum of perspectives on very complex issues - an important feature for City 2.0 might be educating its citizens to embrace complexity. (Yes, I spent quite some time on all the luminaries you mentioned.)

2) Linux and Wikipedia are driven 100% by the profit motive of individuals who contribute to these endeavors. Where did you get the idea that profit is only defined by cash? For example, when I choose to invest time in debating you on the TED site I PROFIT by expanding my own understanding of complex subjects by motivating the expression of diverse opinions. Embracing a broader definition and inventing new ways of quantifying PROFIT might be a great feature for the City 2.0 initiative.

3) Planned obsolescence is either hidden product fraud , or the product of ignorance of consumers who purchase it. Both will be solved by radical transparency and collaborative consumption, and have nothing to do with capitalism. These will be essential for City 2.0
Thank you for the link to the documentary - downloading it now.

4) You got me backwards from reality - I educated myself over many years and abandoned many closely held beliefs, instead looking at complex and often contradictory evidence.
Unfortunately, the more you learn the fewer "friends" you keep: I often find myself hated by the socialists and the Ayn Rand libertarians alike because I expose both of their naive oversimplifications of capitalism's shortcomings and strengths.

Dec 7 2011:
Michael Vlastone, I am a Venus Project fan and I must notice that you have few misunderstandings regarding The Venus Project.

1. TVP would not impose it's 'Grand design', leaving no place for competitive involvement of people interested in contributing to human society. One can say that if established, TVP would offer just the opposite of inert 'Grand design', i.e. it would open possibilities which are held back today by monetary system - which does not encourage advancement of human society (nor human condition in any sense) at all - which is inadmissible, considering our state of technology and science.
‘Competitive, creative environment’ which you advocate is, unfortunately, mostly a form of uncivilized struggle for survival in our monetary system.
2. Venus Project is not ‘blind to development of technology’, it is an absurd statement from any point of view. ‘Removal of obsolescence’ that you mentioned is true regarding planned obsolescence which is consequence of monetary system and significant source of pollution.
3. Statements about ‘human nature’ are very bold and, fortunately, utterly unfounded. Such statements can not be put in same sentence with ‘scientific’. Since ‘human nature’ talk is pretty much in domain of philosophy, we could argue that evolution teaches us that every living organism is adapting to surrounding condition, and sociocultural evolution is continuous process, which can, and should, be constructively altered by responsible individuals, unlike it is being done to this day. Presently, sociocultural evolution is being altered in favor of monetary system, i.e. it’s champion - free enterprise system.

The Venus Project should not be looked at as a pass time, as you suggest. It is rather a proposal of global use of reason. In contemporary state of human society, such a serious attempt to introduce plain healthy human reason to our affairs should be looked upon with gratitude and genuine curiosity.

Let me offer you a different perspective. I used to be really frustrated by video games - what a waste of time and computing resources. Then I understood that the obsession with all these stupid games drives the evolution of CPUs, GPUs, etc. THose who spend too much time playing Warcraft, would have wasted their time anyway by sitting at the bar and drinking 20 years ago. Instead, their consumption drives an industry essential to all human progress.

If everyone was born smart, kind and beautiful life would be fair - but it is not, at least not right now. Think about that one in the context of Venus Project.

Dec 7 2011:
It seems while the followers of the Venus Project do well in repeating the phrases and promises of the Venus Project, they don't understand its doctrine in its entirety. Neither does Vlastone.

There is a very important conclusion upon which much of VP's doctrine is built. The conclusion is that a sociocybernated scenario is INEVITABLE for society. Why? Because it is the most efficient economic arrangement conceivable at this time. As the market tends to inevitably push for greater efficiency, it places society on an inexorable path toward a particular organization. This organization will be more controlled than the organization we have today. This process of reorganization is not only caused ultimately by economic forces but forces of social evolution as well. This is THE MARCH OF EVENTS that is made inevitable by the deep structure of technological and sociological co-evolution. This reorganization will be a reaction to the civil unrest generated by a growing world population running short on resources, overloading the carrying capacity of the earth. At this point you can expect top-down control programs descending upon the populations from desperate governments.

Free markets can't operate in a world that has become too desperate to permit the exercise of past freedoms. Governments will have to install a planned and controlled sociocybernated system by necessity. They will call upon scientists/technicians to engineer this program. There would be no other way of managing societies under such desperate conditions. Solutions for the crisis from the market would be too slow.

In sum, such an inevitable organization manifests in two ways: 1. something like a technocratic fascist tyranny or a technocratic state controlled military dictatorship, or 2. if forward thinking people work together with large investors (on the scale of Dubai), then we can shortcut to the new organization before governments are forced to take coercive action. Fresco tries for the latter.

Dec 7 2011:
Just to add to the 'planned obsolescence' aspect of this discussion.

Isn't planned obsolescence a consequence of 'economies of scale' - In the current paradigm products have to be mass produced in order to achieve economic viability. With the burgeoning 3D printing technologies this will be turned on it's head where bespoke production with minimal waste will be possible.

This type of 'access abundance' is something I would like to see implemented in City 2.0 especially where food is concerned which is certainly an area covered by the Venus Project by hydroponic farming methods.

Check out Cybernated Farming Systems, a new venture by ex-shuttle engineer (and TVP supporter) Douglas Malette who aims to get this technology off the ground commercially.

I guess what all this is pointing to is the goal of 'Self sustaining' which surely no-one is arguing against.

Dec 7 2011:
The thing about the future is that very few things are inevitable. Religious cults all have their beliefs in their particular "march of events that is made inevitable." Lenin, Hitler, Mao and Bin Laden all believed in their inevitable march of events. All were wrong, of course, but that hasn't weakened the confidence of the many who still maintain their own vision of an "inevitable" future. The past is inevitable. The future is flexible and uncertain. Inevitably uncertain.

Dec 8 2011:
Regarding your response above. Indeed, extrapolating the future is difficult. Some have succeeded in that past. Some haven't. The key is recognizing basic axioms and patterns and understanding how they affect each other.
-We recognize that humans have a set of absolute needs
-If you recognize that humans have certain needs, you can delineate a range of reactions when these needs go unfulfilled.
-We can see one reaction in the world today, that citizens will uprise when their needs go unfulfilled
-Likewise, you can recognize that self-preservation is virtually a law of life, and that this holds true for institutions as well, beings individual self-preservation is dependent upon the institution. Self-preservation is a primary cause for uprisings.
-You can recognize that in the past, uprising people were eventually pacified when economic conditions returned to a comfort zone. But can such a return continue?
-You can recognize that the population growth rate cannot be sustained.
-You can recognize that the earth has finite resources
-You can recognize, that automation is a relentless trend in human evolution. B/c it is more efficient, humans will automate wherever possible, as soon as possible

What lays ahead is quite obvious. It is a threat that no good reason or good prudence could deny. (To think that the market can solve it requires as much faith as you may accuse me of having). We are barreling forward toward a crisis: technological unemployment for an exponentially growing population. That is the end of capitalism and the beginning of something new. How will institutions deal with this? The answer: Sociocyberneering in a global resource-based economy. It will be the most efficient way to administer human needs. Society is a mechanism and someday it will be managed like a mechanism.

Dec 8 2011:
The point is that a sociocybernated resource-based economy is as inevitable to our era as automation was inevitable to the medieval era. It is as inevitable as the human body merging with technology. It will evolve as naturally as a bee hive. Economic forces, human need, and planetary constrictions will force it into place.

Natural law is responsible for this evolution. The bee hive was forced into existence by natural law; so too will it force new infrastructures in cities and social arrangements.

However, there is a point of no return, and there are factors that may interfere with this evolution (natural disaster or nuclear war).

Of course technology is the most radical variable and is rendering the future of material objects and their function ever more unpredictable. In contrast, the relationship between humans and technology has evolved in a relatively stable and predictable way. Our technology has changed, and its change is difficult to predict, but our relationship to it has not changed. Fresco's extrapolations are concerned with this relationship and operate on its basis. Fresco is concerned with the larger issue of human evolution of which technology is a part. Such extrapolations require a focus on certain factors that many forcasters severely neglect. Some say it is inevitable that humans will merge with machines, but that is as far as they go. They don't concern themselves with what is inevitable for society.

Dec 8 2011:
Not really, The designs in "flat land" are just an example of how the best technology applied could work. It's more a way of building cities than a unique design, you can learn more about it in the website. However if we keep efficiency and sustaniability as our goal. We need to move forward and forget our current market based structure. That will make a real City 2.0

Dec 8 2011:
If not a full scale TVP style RBE, what say you about what I consider the transitional and ongoing alternative of self managed communities?

In any case, I think a lot of people look to find flaws in order to say, "Look, it can never be that great.. just won't happen in reality." Well, finding flaws is a good thing because it allows for improvement- the attitude that this is "Utopian"- when in fact there will always be problems of some sort- and therefore must never even be attempted, is not as helpful. I also agree with Sharon who is saying that suggesting the Venus Project doesn't mean that one agrees with every proposal by Jacque, but rather, the overall picture of what it allows for.

Dec 6 2011:
If one embraces the idea or a vision, it does not mean you have to agree 100%. Take the best things and change some stuff... for now. If great ideas are rejected because it is new, innovative and astounding, we push ourselves backwards. We need to have an open mind because there is a lot of good things in the venus project.

Dec 8 2011:
Sharon, urban history is littered with wonderful ideas of utopianists. The Venus Project shares so many similarities with these it is not funny. Whilst many goals are noble, creative, innovative, we need to recognise the reality of our villages, towns and cities, and that the way forward is thousands of small projects to change the way cities and towns work.80% of the future is already here. We are better off supporting ways to improve the existing, than to chase one perfect city, in one cultural context that may not translate across cultures and climate zones.

Dec 8 2011:
@ Peter. Points well taken. There are so many ways to interpreted TVP. I did not say that we copy TVP exactly but taking some great ideas from it and apply to what we have missed here in the US. As I said before there life is a balance. At present, we have moved too far towards greed and mis-management or what ever the reasons may be that contributed to where we stand today. Why are there so many homeless here? I can name you countries like Singapore that there are no homeless people walking the streets. Everyone is taken care of by the family or the Gov. When companies are rich, they give to the poor and actually help create homes for the homeless and sickly and managed the community. No one tells them what to do. They just do it. I think Singapore has kind of adopted the TVP a little. People actually do not need cars. Public transportation is really easy to get to. As the country get richer, I hope the act of civic conscience is still maintained.

Back to us, maybe a selected, more contained, well-run community could be a solution for us. Because a closer well designed cell community can bring more advantage than a spread out community where no one cares about each other. TVP project seems like a possible solution.

Singapore and TVP share urban/social ideas, which are universal. Singapore has not adopted TVP at all. They are learning from European best practice sustainability. Having worked in Singapore, and with Singaporean urbanists, I am aware of what they are doing, how they are going about it, and who is the inspiration. In many projects, ideas bubble out of local people and are adopted.

Dec 7 2011:
The Venus Project
Every action and decision we take (or don’t) ripples into the future...and for the first time we have the capability, the technology, and the knowledge to direct those ripples.www.thevenusproject.com
The Venus Project Goals
1.Realizing the declaration of the world's resources as being the common heritage of all people.
2.Transcending the artificial boundaries that currently and arbitrarily separate people.
3.Replacing money-based nationalistic economies with a resource-based world economy.
4.Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control.
5.Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.
6.Redesigning cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy- efficient, clean, and able conveniently to serve the needs of all people.
7.Gradually outgrowing corporate entities and governments (local, national, or supra-national) as means of social management.
8.Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.
9.Developing and using clean, renewable energy sources.
10.Manufacturing the highest-quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.
11.Requiring environmental-impact studies prior to construction of any mega-projects.
12.Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavour.
13.Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.
14.Eliminating elitism—technical or otherwise.
15.Arriving at methodologies by careful research rather than random opinions.
16.Enhancing communication in schools so that our language is relevant to the physical conditions of the world.
17.Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality rather than uniformity.
18.Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Dec 6 2011:
I wish that the City 2.0 took "social networks" back to the physical world. The city of the future should be a community of communities. Neighbors should know each other - and interact with one another. Residents of cities who share interests and other common traits should be able to easily find one another - and get to know one another. Technology can obviously play a key role in making this happen, but at the end of the day cities should be about the people who live in them and the interactions that they have together.

Dec 7 2011:
Ariel, this is absolutely necessary. We have run social networks all over the world. It is time to land social networks where they belong, affecting one's local, physical world for good by accessing the global information network.

Dec 8 2011:
A good claim, Ariel. In order to do that, the city 2.0 needs public spaces open to everyone and intelligently designed to favour self-organized networking. An agora with designated moderators where the public can inform and deliberate amongst themselves for the improvement of their community.
It also needs providing an infrastructure to facilitate the participation of someone who has an 8 hour shift behind him (which is one of the merits of virtualia). This would not only be valuable to establish a true-to-its-name local democracy but also to harvest the intrinsic unused ressources of the citizens for the citizens

Dec 8 2011:
Indeed. A Resource Based Economy proposes to automate as many of the menial, repetitive jobs as soon as possible. This will provide abundance of what is needed and shorten work days giving people more free time to socialize, learn new things, be creative, and have work that is more fulfilling to our lives and the lives of everyone else who participates in the system.

In our current monetary based sytsem, automation displaces people from work and they become unemployed. Without a job for income, citizens lack access to resources which is really what people need anyway. Not some 9-5 that we hate, pays us poorly, and stresses us out.

With integrated transport systems, youtube "Ultra transport" and "ET3 transport" meeting people halfway around the world in real time will be almost as easy as on the internet. If you give people what they need to survive and the time to enjoy it people will behave very differently as they did in preagricultural days where societies were based on community, sharing, and abundance. Not scarcity and property where one is always stressed out and not able to trust people in a dog eat dog world.

Dec 7 2011:
/ English is not my main language guys, so there may be some small grammatical errors /

An idea for a city is completely blank without being aware for whom the city is. You cannot build zoo cages for zebras without having grass, water, etc. In other words, you analyze the subject first.
An understanding of human necessities and human behavior is crucial for starting such a project. Therefore, the known subject must be related to it´s known environment (rates of change, technology, etc).

This is how scientists work when they plan to colonize Mars or another planet. They start with the subject (the animal in our case), analyze the environment, and arrive at a solution for building the colony (how many resources Mars have, what they can use and for how long, the materials they can substitute, the consumption of a human being, etc).

The Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is a model (design) for such a society. The designs by Jacque Fresco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco) are built using the scientific method and taking into account the human behavior, present technology, planet resources, the emergent society, etc. Is a very detailed project with little regard for what people feel about it, just like any scientific approach should be. If you want a society for human concern you need to work hard on it to arrive at such solution and be aware of the constant changes that may occur on the way.

The strange fact is that you (the listener) have very little time to analyze it (job, family, projects, old values) therefore you won´t be able to understand it. Remember, is a society analyzed and improved for more than 70 years, do not think you will understand it completely from a website, or a youtube clip.
If you are serious you will do a research on it since is in your own good.

Dec 8 2011:
Hi,
I'm a french guy (so, sorry for my english) and I purprose The Venus Project.

Why ?
"The City 2.0 is not a sterile utopian dream"
The Venus Project (TVP) was developped during 70years of scientific research. It's not a little kidness in more but a really way with science application.

"The City 2.0 promotes innovation"
Innovation is one of the major stuff of TVP who use the last innovation in technology, science, social,...

"(...)education"
Éducation is an obligation. Without éducation, we can't learn to live together in a sustainable future.

"(...)culture"
The balance between culture need to be conserved but only if it's efficient for a peacefully life between humans: http://tinyurl.com/cjdygor

"(...)economic opportuniy"
TVP's focus is to create a Ressource Based on Economy without monetary system: http://tinyurl.com/d3lxlrr

"The City 2.0 is a place of beauty, wonder, excitement, inclusion, diversity, life."
Architecture in different TVP city design are wonderfull. It's a fusion between ecology and technology with an intelligent management. I invite you, dear TED members, to watch this 3D Demonstration (from 23s): http://tinyurl.com/ck928hc

With TVP, you'll join hundreds of thousands people who support the project and a big community who developing and updating the concept.
Fusion beween TED & TVP for seeing emerge TVP's aims and proposal will be fabulous.

Dec 7 2011:
A City 2.0 concept should be in sync with upcoming Civilization 4.0 (where 1.0=Aboriginal; 2.0=Barter; 3.0=Monetary; 4.0=Resource-based).

A Resource-based Economy is the proposed evolutionary alternative to the current monetary system, where efficient and sustainable cities take the front seat. We should at least be aware of the Resource-based Economy concept and take it into consideration in our collective effort to reach the City 2.0 vision.

In a few paragraphs, the concept refers to the economic structure that is applied on top of nature/physical laws. The currently used economic structure worldwide is the monetary model, which in turn, current political perspectives and corporations stand on. Our monetary economic model has reached it's peak for the current population and technological progress; it is not scalable anymore on a limited resource planet.

A Resource-based Economy is an economic structure in which physical laws and the population's needs are taken into account first. We couldn't implement such a system before, as we require current day technical knowledge and infrastructure to deal with global resource inventorying, management and optimal path finding. It should be understood that money is a value proxy that doesn't take resource renewability and human requirements into consideration, which may lead to a social and economical collapse in a few decades if we continue pushing it.

Dec 11 2011:
The Venus Project city concept & design is not only outstanding but it provides for a comprehensive approach to solving most of the problems of the world through the scientific method within a Resource Based economy System.

Dec 8 2011:
I would definitely vote for the Venus Project and Jacque Fresco's circular city arrangement as for the City 2.0 Ted's prize. His innovative approach in designing cities goes beyond anything established and constructed even in projects so far. On their website, you can find not only visual models and possible designs of cities that can be built on land, offshore and on sea, but also a media showing the real prototypes of future houses. Besides, the Venus Project is a tangible project, located in Venus, Florida, USA. You can visit the research centre that was built by Jacque together with his colleague Roxanne Meadows.
More than that, Jacque's circular city is a part of many global cities around the world that could comprise new green technologies, safe transportation, production and distribution centres, modern hospitals, nice parks, comfortable homes, cultural and amusements centres.
I believe that Jacque's unique project he worked on nearly all his life deserves a very close attention.

Though, it is easy to be overcome by the fanciful drawings; keep in mind those are just possibilities. It's the priority of values that is most vital; Embracing natural systems, maximizing efficiency, encouraging resource abundance, not scarcity. Those are the attributes of City 2.0 and what will bring about Kaku's Type 1 civilization.

As to critics & detractors seen below, understand you're missing the forest from the trees. Nitpicking on relatively minor points or interpretations diffuses the possibility of starling towards any such advances a resource abundance will bring. You may think you're helping by being critical, but really, without an alternative solution to propose, you're just prolonging the harmful structures that exist and increasing the time to realizing City 2.0.

To say, we could argue all day long on the finer aspects, but this is not the forum for it. The Venus Project is the beginning of Kaku's Type 1 civilization... so can we not agree it best to solve the other minutiae along the way towards resource abundance, to give our values the chance to evolve organically?

Be critical, fine, but only as a part of the solution; anyone can poke holes in anything, doesn't mean the effort is justified.

Comment deleted

Dec 6 2011:
I'm afraid that people start shooting thousands of ideas, they may all be good ideas, but what I wish is to find a way of integrate all those ideas, no dominant side, no short vision. We need a wide view of the challenge in order to understand, integrate and synthesize; there is no room for "one size fits all" we need a strategy for highly contextualized solutions, empowering local development while been open and connected.

Comment deleted

Dec 8 2011:
With all the respect Mr. Fresco deserves for a life time dedication, I don't think Venus Project is realistic enough, there are many good ideas, but I don't see them feasible to apply as urgently as we need to change things in the world, for sure are useful and inspiring, but again, whatever City 2.0 ends up been must be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable, highly contextualized, open solutions, ready to apply ASAP.

Dec 8 2011:
Victor, your point is spot on. The hot spots for innovation are not the big cities, but the smaller innovative cities and towns, even villages. They have lead the way, and we need to see what they have done, how that can be applied in our context, and how we can improve on it. The city of tomorrow is already 80% built - they are our existing villages, towns and cities. It these that we have to improve. We don't need to build a new city. I believe City 2.0 is the journey of transformation of our existing cities, and it is the way that we enable this. Hence my suggestion that I have put forward here. We need to create a new global dialogue between all the local places, so that each can help each other, as well as learn from each other. Also perhaps we can hope that this may bring many of the spiritual or social wishes presented here. The solution to your local problem may actually not be in your area, but the person holding it could be half a planet away, and unless there is someway to draw people together, and connect local places there is so much we have to lose.

Dec 8 2011:
Victor, I agree that the City 2.0 prize approach to the future of the city needs to be a globally integrative approach of the thousands of ideas that are already on the ground making a difference already. Like both a physical and virtual library of alexandria, collaboratively built in every city around the world by local partners and volunteers, linked by the virtual. That way, each city's contextualised solutions can be examined and adapted by other cities. This is not a high-brow C40 approach, but a grass roots approach.

Dec 6 2011:
Building a city is not just about architecture and civil engineering. There's more to cties than buildings, roads, sewers and parks. A city is a collection of people and what makes a city worth living in is the staggering array of connections between all of those people. But the worst thing about city life is how shallow and empty most of those connections are.

Having grown up in the countryside and moved to the centre of a city, the thing I miss most (even if I didn't truly appreciate it at the time) is the sense of community that you feel when you live in a small town. There is a tremendous warmth and comfort in sharing your life with the people who surround you.

Building connections has another great advantage. TED is a prime example of what can be achieved by simply sharing your ideas with the world. It doesn't need to be a groundbreaking scientific discovery, even simple things like learning to tie your shoelaces properly can have a dramatic effect on the way you live your life. When we teach we feel valued and when we learn we feel inspired and when we share we feel a part of something amazing.

Now, imagine a world where everyone is both teacher and student, sharing their skills and experiences with anyone who wants to learn. Imagine a building on every street or every city block which is dedicated to the sharing of ideas. A place for everyone with no limits on age or background. Whether you're a retired carpenter that wants to pass on his skills to a new generation, a widow who wants to share her perspective on life after the death of a loved one or a schoolchild who wants to scream at the world for not doing enough about climate change; the world will be enriched if you share what you know.

My ideal city would always have a place where you can do that, freely and openly and for everyone to benefit.

Comment deleted

Dec 16 2011:
I was once in conversation with the chief of urban planning in Uppsala, Sweden and he pointed out that many of the choices that he and his colleagues made were still heavily influenced by key choices that had been made 400 years earlier. So... one thing I would wish for is that when designing the city living spaces of the future that dreams and visions are imagined with a very long time horizon. Wondering... who will we be as human beings in 500 or a 1000 years time? And then designing with that mystery in the mix.

Also... central to the visioning... I wonder... what are the dreams and visions for cities that are founded on eternal human needs and desires? For instance the human need & desires to have a voice, to be heard, to have dignity, to love, to be loved, to see the stars, to play, to experience joy, to be touched by the natural world.... and so many more. What is it that is eternal that can be made inherent in the design of cities.

Also... to question... what's impossible for us to do today... but would be desirable if it was possible... (I mean in 100 years time it probably will be!) One thing that comes to my mind... what if children in a city could directly experience the full wonder and glory of the night sky from the heart of a city? Crazy idea... but if it was possible... I think it would be transformational. Imagine being able to lie on the grass of a city park and see the stars like you do from a remote mountain top. ;-)

Dec 11 2011:
Teams all over the world experiment already with these ideas.
Key concepts seems to be: collaboration and other fundamental perceptions of the world.
Need to change they way we educate our children. This should be our topmost priority.
It is also on our hands to create a model of society as proposed by people on the Venus Project, helped by companies like Google(Information management), and HP(CenSe net) and Cisco(communications).
People need to wake up and take the next level in civilisation.

Dec 7 2011:
I think the Venus project (TVP) is not suppose (or should not) to be a project that dominates every inch of the world. That would be a disaster. Animals need to be in their natural environments and respected. Change happens over time and acceptance. I see TVP as an alternate way of lifestyle for our future community to work, innovate, and live better with positive attitudes to improve, learn and grow. For us being a smarter race and more advances in thinking would help the people make the world a better place. Because we need to always push the boundaries, of innovation for advancement.

We must understand that we cannot take away the CHOICES from people. For choices is our means of freedom as humans. So if people want to live as is… it perfectly ok. TVP project is a means for advancement for human enrichment. With TVP it opens so much possibilities to do such great things.

Dec 6 2011:
Electronic infrastructure for organizations, cities, people to come together to share the good things that are happening, or even to share resources. So many people and organizations are doing great things (like TED), but there isn't a central hub for things like non-profits to go and share what they are doing and ask questions of other organizations that are similar in other communities across the world. We just need central locations for connecting all of these networks.

Or cities to go and learn from others in once place with examples from across the world.

or even business being able to connect more directly with non-profits and school to help out or even donate more of what they are currently throwing away .

Everyone is always trying to re-invent the wheel, when there is already soo many good things out there, and so much collaborative power waiting to be harnessed and connected!

Dec 8 2011:
Katie, I agree that the City 2.0 prize approach to the future of the city needs to be a globally integrative approach of the thousands of ideas that are already on the ground making a difference already.

It could be both a physical presence and a virtual presence, like a modern urban library of alexandria, collaboratively built in every city around the world by local partners and volunteers, linked by the virtual. That way, each city's contextualised solutions can be examined and adapted by other cities. This is not a high-brow C40 approach, but a grass roots approach so that anyone can log on, and see the solutions, and how they work. If they want, they can go and visit the local branch, and see some of the solutions in practice. They can also be referred to the real live demonstration projects that are pioneering the way, such as Hammarby Sjostad in my city, or BO-01 in Malmo, or Kronsberg in Hannover.

we don't need to reinvent the wheel when there is so much good work on the ground.

Dec 14 2011:
I wish for city 2.0 to be a place where more people can work and collaborate , for less hours a week. I wish for the city's habitats to be able to actualy enjoy all the great things this city has to offer, and contribute time to pursue with the city's community goals.

Dec 14 2011:
I agree whole heartily! Social networks give us unprecedented opportunity for collaboration, synergy, and interdependence. Now it is a matter of us as a whole managing those social resources in a way that our efforts are beneficial for the whole human family.

Ultimately allocation of resources is the human families most limiting factor, not natural resources, or time, or wealth. Until people are willing to distribute their resources according to the situations with the greatest needs, we will only be addressing symptoms of the problem.

Dec 14 2011:
Such great ideas! To build on Jennifer Appel's green roofs, when I am flying into Los Angeles (LAX) viewing down at the sea of heat reflecting roofs, I've been longing to see them green, reducing energy demands, reducing the urban heat island, aiding natural filtration for our watersheds, creating more bird habitats and biodiversity. My TED City 2.0 wish would be to focus the green roof effort in the approaches to airports where they can be seen to help seed and spread the idea, and to foster a sense of community for these sometimes neglected neighborhoods.

In response to Daniel's post below, I share your thoughts about City 2.0 building upon our existing cities. I have to disagree about the monorail though - what better way to appreciate and not adversely affect our existing cities while commuting on a monorail, which could give great vistas (I'm picturing riding along the river in Paris), connect the community, and actually be fun! Here are some of the advantages I agree with.http://www.seattlemonorail.org/advantages.html

That leads me to my last thought about City 2.0 - it should be fun. It should take risks and experiment on social levels as well as with building systems, energy solutions, and agriculture. We have some serious challenges facing us in the future and we need to encourage some creative thinking. Let's start experimenting with ideas on the lawn of city hall and other public spaces at the invitation of our public officials, and occupy LA and other cities with our concepts for an enhanced urban environment. A fruit orchard in place of the public lawn for instance - a gathering place, same water needs, and will provide food for people and wildlife while storing carbon.

Dec 8 2011:
My ideal city would be 100% energy independent: being capable of providing its own food and transport by maximising the use of automation and investing all of its resources into developing its people through vocations such as healthcare, education and research. A bit like Masdar City, but without the limitations of the monetary based economy.

Dec 7 2011:
Humans -
-Living animal species with relatively Much powerful Cognitive Hardware
-Born with Innate curiosity to learn and explore
-Require basic necessities for survival
-Able enough to accomplish great feats if their passion goes well nourished

City 2.0 needs to -
-Provide Basic necessities for survival
-With fear of basic necessities gone, shall provide for information (free from normative fallacies) and guidance so as to cultivate ones curiosity and passion
-Use Clean renewable energy sources
-Try to automate the city processes like manufacturing, agriculture, transport, etc as much as possible, so as to free humans from labor and let them use their brains
-Implement sustainable processes like Recycling

Dec 7 2011:
I wish for the City 2.0 to have a uniform public transportation system. Not buses, tramsways, trains, a metro system, but a standardized and centralized system. There is only one type of street for cars, there is only one type of sidewalk for pedestrians, so why do there have to be ten different ways to use public transport? If streets and sidewalks are the arteries of urbanized life, then public transport in its current state is equivalent to atherosclerosis. It slows us down, it's complicated to switch from one to another (coming out of the metro, you really don't want to rund around the station for five to ten minutes just to find the right bus) -- and we're in a bad mood when we are crammed into the train. And I don't want to be in a bad mood when I'm enjoying the wonders of the City 2.0.

Dec 8 2011:
The way that everyone considered is diffrent.so if we have a uniform public transportation system,who can insure this is good for everyone.so t think the key is that whether people impose their personal intersts on other people.

Dec 8 2011:
Simone, as someone who has been pushing boundaries on public transport for most of my career, each mode has its role and its unique one. Each mode contributes a different time-space-capacity profile. Not everything can be all stops, unless we all get a TARDIS or there is a global Teleport system developed. Until then, each mode will have a role, and what the challenge is, how best do we utilise these according to the patterns of where people want to go to? Transfer should not be too difficult it the system is designed as a system, and each mode turns up when it should, with clear signage so everyone knows where to go. Having designed a public transport interchange, I know that experience of the place and its movement should be beautiful, as well as functional, and easy to find your way.

Dec 7 2011:
I wish we could change HOW we structure and group people so they were more able to manifest their full potential: less institutions, rigid structures and one size fits all rules, more fluid, multi-dimensional cooperatives, community values and non-zero sum economics.

There would be amazing spaces occupied by groups who would attract members according to shared values etc. These groups would be self sustaining and allow the individuals to work individually and together. For example, one might be focused on creating chemical, plastic free consumer products and designs and educating people about these things and running recycling for the community. Another group might do loads of art and events, teach children about creativity, and outsource creative services to others. Again a community contribution would be expected. the big part of my wish is rather than inefficient top down management the system would be set up to allow organisations and groups to emerge. The flow would be organic and that would mean that the ones that didnt get sustainable don't survive. Larger infrastructure issues like food, water, sanitation etc. could be handled by not for profit groups that sold it to consumers at cost plus a percentage for running it. The people in these groups would take a percentage of what was sold and that percentage would be public so people could decide for themselves which farm collective to buy from. In this way everyone in the city would have access to the essentials of life, community, basic sustainable products, education and livelihood according to their choice, their interests, their passions and their ability to create, collaborate and evolve. We'd have to find something compassionate to serve anyone who fell through those cracks but I suspect they would be minimal.

Dec 7 2011:
City 2.0 - A place where magical possibilities are brought alive due to the unbounded imagination of its citizens. Where ethical conduct is woven within the fabric of its foundations, unbridled materialism is looked down upon, and empathy and care are inculcated and rewarded. It is a city where the streets are safe for children to walk at night and nature and human beings live in balance. Its citizenship is a privilege, each person strives for enlightenment, and where discovering the hidden meanings, relationships, and patterns within nature is considered one's duty and responsibility. City 2.0 inspires its citizens to take on the biggest and most mind boggling challenges of nature, and solves each problem successfully, sustainably, and confidently. It is a city where differences in ethnicities, religions, and cultures are essential to its success, and where individuals express their personal preferences, choices, and identities without worrying about being gamed or abused by others. Here civic responsibility is exalted as a high virtue and city elders nurture their young. City 2.0 families live in peace, and don't consider respect/love for others as optional. Citizen of City 2.0 ("Citizen 2.0") contributes generously their time and knowledge towards increasing the base of good knowledge, and in the process enable life itself to become more persistent and resilient. City 2.0 is a conscious organism, and through this self-awareness it can recognize and defend its vision and values. City 2.0 can process information and allocate resources efficiently, economically, and with care. City 2.0 doesn't burden itself (or its citizens) unnecessarily, and underwrites the well-being of the marginalized segments within its population. Ultimately, it recognizes that City 2.0 is only as healthy or relevant as the most unhappy or downtrodden Citizen 2.0. City 2.0 is an idea that is infectious, it is a an undertaking of labor and love.

Dec 7 2011:
We need a wikipedia of City 2.0 ideas - ideas from around the world that others can tap into and share their experiences. This is where tried and tested ideas can be shared with others and where improvements can be contributed. Unlike a blog which seems to attract negative comments - the wiki idea would have page supporters which would ensure that the content is relevant and without agenda or promotions. Each idea would need a full description of features and benefits, a how to section and a contact for further details. I see it almost as a franchise section that does not include a license fee. One idea I have heard about is turning the roof tops of city buildings into gardens - not new - but there must be a lot of experience about what works and what does not. There is little to be gained from commercialising this idea - far more from sharing it - but how do you go about it and what is involved. Or the city bike system - already taking over in Paris and London - this needs to be shared in other cities too. What are the issues and how is this best done?

Dec 6 2011:
Real food is grown in the city, brought in from the local country areas.
Fresh, organic wholefood prepared with love and integrity is available on every corner, prepared in every home.
Junk food is recognized as dangerous and taxed heavily or optimally made illegal
Farmers are rewarded for growing food with integrity.
How to grow food and prepare wholefood is taught in every school.
Gardens replace lawns.
Permaculture is practiced over Pesticide.
Unadulterated water comes from springs instead of chemically treated reservoir water.
People come together in community to share meals, friends, family, we are meant to eat together.
Love is part of every table setting.

Dec 9 2011:
yes localized and decentralized. One of my fave Ted Talks is on "Vertical Farming" in case you haven't seen it yet. I really like a lot of what your are saying here. Another great documentary you can find online on this topic is
-doc The Economics of Happiness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgjr-IUqh_8&feature=related

As for banning things. Prohibition never works. It only drives things underground and creates a black market and crime. Let people eat what they want to eat it's their body. However, education on nutrition is key. I don't think punishment is good for society. Understanding as much as we can on why people behave the way they do and helping to treat them is best. If you haven't seen

Dec 6 2011:
The End of Nations and the Rise of Cities
The famous quote "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us" by Winston Churchill should be changed to "We shape our CITIES and thereafter they shape us." I think cities and the surrounding environment (urban or non-urban) within which buildings are located are more significant in shaping our human experience than individual buildings.
Globalization is reshaping our human experience and is making cities more important than nations. The future will depend on cities networking and management. My wish is to see cities become independent of nations and states; "real" global cities that provide opportunities for all human beings regardless of their nationality and background. Cities that provide real "Cities-zenship" and not "State-zenship".
I wish that City 2.0 is not an "expanded nor inflated" City 1.0! I wish to see regional and global networks of cities that provide shared and enhanced human experience and opportunities for all. Rich cities should network with poor cities and create a conglomeration or cluster that provides shared and enhanced experience for all. City 2.0 is a City to become and not a City to be.

Dec 6 2011:
I would wish for an educational environment and system that would nurture the whole child. One that would foster the body-mind connection, and respect for all people, regardless of religion,color, race, gender, gender identity and economic status. Where strengths were identified and challenge areas addressed. Where every student was empowered to become productive members of our society and to live happy, healthy lives.
Those are my wishes for the future.

Dec 6 2011:
I've got a few ideas for the city 2.0 that I've been tossing around.

Putting automobile traffic and parking lots underground will allow buildings to be built closer together and wil leave more space for parks and gardens throughout the city. Also by making roads and cars used in the city "smart" it would eleviate the congestion we see today.

The city should be design to produce as much of its food as possible. Urban agriculture utilizing aquaculture combined with hydroponics/aeroponics will provide access to fresh food in a highly sustainable way.

Construct the city to collect and purify rainwater.

Add a package delivery system connecting homes and businesses (probably some type of delivery system utilizing mag-lev tach). This would eliminate a lot of larger vehicle traffic.

Finally I'll leave you with two of the more idealistic ideas.
1. The city should be built to be easily deconstructed in a way that doesn't generate the waste we currently get from demolitions. A century from now when tech calls for a new design it won't be ignored because of the cost or difficulty of implementing the change. To accomplish this I suggest modular buildings and systems that can be taken apart in chunks without disturbing the functionality of the rest of the building or city.
2. The city should be designed as a large university, making its highest priority education and R&D. This will give the cities populace a shared purpose further unifying them, and I can think of no purpose more worthy than education.

Dec 6 2011:
For City 2.0 I wish that all children living in the City are directly involved in imagining, creating and building solutions for the future...DIRECTLY involved (they almost never are)....after all, they are the inhabitants of City 2.0 and should be participants in building their home.

Dec 8 2011:
J Gonzalez, Where the City 2.0 prize approach to the future of the city is a globally integrative approach of the thousands of ideas that are already on the ground making a difference already, children of all ages can be at heart of this playing a role in every city where there is physical presence, helping build, host, or contributing their ideas. Where it is virtual, they can also participate, and collaborate with their peers online in what ever city they are attracted to or want to help, as well as their own.

By being both a physical presence and a virtual presence, like a modern urban library of alexandria, collaboratively built in every city around the world by local partners and volunteers, linked by the virtual can work together. That way, each city's contextualised solutions can be examined and adapted by other cities. This is not a high-brow C40 approach, but a grass roots approach so that anyone can log on, and see the solutions, and how they work. If they want, they can go and visit the local branch, and see some of the solutions in practice. The children could explain how they contributed and helped build the local sustainability house that demonstrates to their area just how local houses can be made sustainable, and their lifestyle could even be improved by this.

Dec 8 2011:
Hi Peter - I do agree that City 2.0 adopts/adapts the open source model and that we can builld on the good work already being done by young people everywhere...I like to think of it as a "sandbox" where a variety of challenges are presented and different groups address those where they feel they can make the greatest contribution.

Kids bring their eyes with them (their own way of seeing) that enables them to find unique solutions.

Dec 8 2011:
You hit on the first response I intended to post. Of course, I'm quite biased in this respect given my background in education, but involving children directly in this process would be key. Such an initiative as city 2.0 would require long-term commitment from all involved and this cannot be done without our youngest who will be expected to sustain the effort. It is important to note, however, that I do not hold romanticized notions of children's contributions as solely unique to the young. Every person of every generation has a unique perspective and set of abilities.

My primary concern is equalizing our education. It is remarkably short-sighted to expect a nation to grow and prosper without ensuring that each and every citizen be prepared for the world they enter. The vast majority of concerns expressed in this forum may be either eliminated entirely or greatly improved with a well educated public (whatever form that education may take).

Dec 8 2011:
Hi Amy - I agree that everyone contributes and is reflected in the realm of ideas...but I'm especially conscious of the value fresh perspective brings to a challenge...unlimited by predefined methods or patterns...see below:

Boy discovers microbe that eats plastic
PhDs have been searching for a solution to the plastic waste problem, and this 16-year-old finds the answer.

Dec 9 2011:
What a great story! Fresh perspective definitely helps solve problems, no argument there. So does years of experience and a willingness to collaborate. This makes me wonder if the same idea could be applied to adults who change careers. Is it youth alone that allows people to find creative solutions or simply being entirely new to an experience? I'd be interested to see research on all these topics.

Dec 20 2011:
I apologize for taking up all this space (9 sections). As the discussion is nearing its close I hope this will not inconvenience anyone. Many others have mentioned similar ideas. Perhaps this synthesis and model of how to will be helpful. Daimon

Section 1 of 9

How can we create “a massive collaborative project among the members of the global TED community, and indeed all who care about our planet's future?” Here is the outline of a plan for creating a global system of collective intelligence which continually evolves new and better ways for cities to function.

Based on local participation, this approach takes local culture, needs and resources into account, creates real change, connects people into local and global action-based networks, produces an evolving global resource of the best ideas for cities so those ideas can spread rapidly, and creates a TED-branded social ecology in collaboration with members and others, resulting in a powerful and growing force for positive global change.

As the annual TED Conference is the eye-catching centerpiece of the TED community, similarly, an IdeaFest in every interested city and town is the eye-catching local focus for an annual cycle of project-based civic evolution.

The process works like this: A qualified person or group convenes an IdeaFest and its associate process in a city or town. The IdeaFest rules are put forth by TED, building on the TEDx model, helping ensure quality and consistency and inspiring trust and participation through the credibility of the TED organization.

TED and its collaborators also create and host the communications infrastructure for all that follows. Sponsors could include the Clinton Foundation with its focus on cities and IBM with its Smarter Cities program, just for starters.
After appropriate preparation, the IdeaFest invites everyone in the city or town to contribute answers to the organizing question:

Dec 20 2011:
Section 9 of 9
As people engage with their neighbors around meaningful aims, social capital will build. Participants will gain confidence and self-respect along with project management, presentation and other practical and interpersonal skills. As they find and work with each other they will build connections and a sense of community. More and higher quality social connections improve mental and physical health, along with disaster resilience, providing perhaps significant additional benefits. Perhaps most important, the idea that what happens is up to the people, not the powers that be, will take root and spread.

Thus, while much happens online the face to face, community-level connections are vital. The whole political spectrum might become engaged because everyone has ideas about how to make their community better. If this opportunity is handled well (a creative challenge to be sure) the quality of public discourse and public information will improve.

Forms of engagement can shift from polarized opposition to creative inquiry into the shared question, “How can we make our city or town better?” Discussions (perhaps facilitated) of what “better” means could be rich and might move people beyond ideological preconceptions through human interaction and the simple but powerful experience of being heard. This civic and civil engagement is one of the less obvious but most important aims of this project.

Finally, and obviously, there will be an annual TED Global City 2.0 gathering and event celebrating the most amazing projects and their instigators and leaders from around the world. This will create enormous global visibility, build momentum for the whole project and help shift the direction of global culture toward sustainable well-being for all beings.

Dec 20 2011:
City 2.0 will be the Natural and Smart City, a city first and foremost centred on the laws of nature; a resilient, highly integrated self-sufficient dynamic place where the best of the past and present meet to generate positive outputs and outcomes. It will be the intersection of communications technology, urban farming, mobility services, innovative living arrangements, renewable district energy, and intelligent infrastructure. It will be a fine-grained place that conserves water and energy. Waste will be eliminated. City 2.0 will be highly localized and synchronized to its unique physical location on the planet. This sychronization combined with the social energy of the place will generate a unique culture.

By design, every decision, action and object in City 2.0 will enhance the natural world in some way; improving biodiversity, keeping air and water clean. As the Romans did, City 2.0 will mandate solar access. Every human-made component will have multiple purposes. Material, energy and water flows will be managed to cascade through the city- every useful bit will be squeezed out. Buildings will be reused many times- at the end they will be disassembled into useful materials

City 2.0 will reconnect us with all the functions of living - educate us about growth cycles, energy, biology, the food chain and so on. It will likely be a more labour intensive city and an incubator for local entrepreneurs. It will be a city composed of engaged citizens, rather than passive consumers. Its form and walkability will liberate its occupants and their time. Its mixed-use, mixed-income, mixed-age composition will encourage interaction and creativity.

Technology will enhance City 2.0. Telecommuting will be the default mode of working for those whose jobs can be done that way. Transit, cycling and vehicle sharing will make up most of the wheeled transportation. City 2.0 will be made up of 20-minute neighbourhoods to make living equitable & enjoyable for all ages and abilities

Dec 17 2011:
The city of the future may be in our minds. We should integrate computer technology with our own minds, much like how bacteria integrated mitochondria into their cell structure billions of years ago. Imagine if we eliminate forgetfulness, indecision, and miscommunication. And learn to control our desires and emotions. With this advanced intelligence there is no more people doing dumb shit, nothing to fight about. End all this disharmony in the world. We all must act as one, towards the same goal, knowledge.

Dec 16 2011:
Perhaps The City 2.0 will be POWERED BY ART - http://landartgenerator.org
A clean energy future creates a more healthy, peaceful, egalitarian, and happy City 2.0. And sustainability is not only about resources and consumption, but also about cultural depth and social harmony. Hopefully, the renewable energy power plants of The City 2.0 will inspire the future with their artistic beauty and innovative concepts.

10. has been proven through scientific replicated peer reviewed research and infra-red heat maps to reduce, (and if enough people got on board eliminate), the urban heat island effect,
11. creates a relatively stable indoor temperature year round regardless of climate that would reduce energy needs to a single-story structure such that wind and solar should be able to effectively meet the needs of the entire required usage without grid attachment,
12. inclusion of a green wall system in companion with the green roof system creates a relatively stable indoor temperature year round regardless of climate that would reduce energy needs to a multi-story structure such that wind and solar should be able to effectively meet the needs of the entire structure usage without grid attachment,
13. future designed and built environments would include these technologies to create a sustainable planet where there is no need for grid electricity subject to solar flares (http://www.wnd.com/fa=PAGE.view&pageId=373629) as well as a future not laden with cancer causing radiation from fuel leaking nuclear reactors. (www.enenews.com) (The life of Plutonium is approximately 240,000 years. It's daughter products will be around much longer than we will. Now, is the time to start to allow the proven method of landscapes that literally clean the air to start their magic. i.e.: The Amazon and the pine forest at Chernobyl.)

Incidentally, the above referenced technology currently exists. I have developed, tested, as well as had independent scientific peer reviewed verification and publication of said technology and patented an approach that has been proven to do all of the above. I would like to engage and collaborate with the TED PRIZE team. I would also like to incorporate previous winners of the TED prize into my wish for The City 2.0.

Dec 16 2011:
This such a common sense approach to the challenges we face in the very near future, that I cannot imagine why they would not receive serious consideration and effort for immediate implementation. We are the stewards of this world and we have a responsibility to take care of it, but, at the same time we have to live and thrive here on our home. It is obvious that we working class people cannot afford to continue along the path that we are on, and Jennifer's solutions seem a practical and affordable way to accomplish both goals.

Dec 13 2011:
CONTINUED FROM POST #1
Method to create my wish with the above referenced features for The City 2.0:
1. utilizing the technology of a five pound per square foot (or heavier if so desired), green roof system that could be retrofitted on any existing structure with any slope,
2. would allow the green roof flowering plants to purify rain water and utilize the toxins in that rain water as nutrients to grow the plants,
3. naturally purifying the rain water would allow that water to be used as potable water within the building structure,
4. the excess remainder of the purified rain water not harvested for building use would reduce the amount and toxicity of runoff into the natural environment thus reducing major flood events caused by our currently engineered drainage systems, (Tropical Storm Allison flooded the majority of downtown Houston in 2003. If each single family residential structure in the affected area had a total of two 50 gallon water barrels retaining the rain water, the flood event that caused more than one Billion dollars in economic damage would not have occurred.)
5. the excess remainder of the purified rain water not harvested for building use would reduce the amount and toxicity of runoff into the natural environment as releasing the excess purified rain water would also reduce the dead zones in our waterways and oceans,
6. utilizing composting technologies to eliminate waste stream products and utilize those products in the on-site landscapes would reduce landfill space and waste water operations,
7. allows for the creation of potable water out of thin air in arid regions,
8. allows for the growth of nutrient dense food on the structure reducing energy transportation from off-site food producing locations to right above a person's head, on the roof or on the wall,
9. allows for the replacement of lost natural habitat,
10. CONTINUED IN NEXT POST #3

While the concept of clustering people into 'small but tall' community 'pods' as espoused in Agenda 21, (UN adoption by resolution, circa 1992), and visually in the movies such as Zeitgeist and Gattica, I believe those cities may be built for the future; however, we also need to address the current living conditions we have at the moment.

My TED wish to change the world features an ideal mind, body, soul, and construction solution to The City 2.0 where:
1. the houses, offices, shopping places and entertainment locations create their own power, water, nutrient dense food and reduce or eliminate effluent and toxins leaching into the environment both by retrofitting current patented technology on existing structures while building the future modular and scalable concept cities with these patented technologies at the fore, and;
2. an environment that is given the opportunity to heal itself while still accommodating the enlarging population and their engineered built environment. (We are not going to raze our existing cities until we have built a place to put the people and we cannot do that without costly infrastructure - unless the places we build create our infrastructure for each location thus allowing people to be self reliant and less of a strain on the natural environment. i.e.: Tokyo is facing this problem right now.), and;
3. individual tastes in art and architecture are still valid and can be seen in The City 2.0 while being able to accomplish both of the goals in item numbers 1 and 2.

Method to create my wish with the above referenced features for The City 2.0:
1. utilizing the technology of a five pound per square foot (or heavier if so desired), green roof system that could be retrofitted on any existing structure with any slope,
2. would allow the green roof flowering plants to purify rain water and utilize the toxins in that rain water as nutrients to grow the plants,
3. CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

Dec 13 2011:
well...what should i say..!!kudos to such a project...i mean such a thoughtful one...on a short not i would like to say mumble a few words....a city ..rather an ecosystem of various social diversions living in a harmonic and mutual collaboration....sounds good but if viewed in reality it's even better..i would suggest the city to be an ecosystem with the co-existence of love,harmony and obviously peace...it's only if we stay connected ...and if we understand each other...what we want to convey...it's high time we show the Mayan calendar (P.S. i mean no offence to the Mayan civilization.) that this world ain't gonna end in 2012 ..rather 2012 would account for the rebirth of a new city...EARTH 2.0...I'm sorry to be bit lengthy..but when a project such as this in under development who would stay behind...LET THE EARTH RULE ..!!!once again....:)..signing out...with pleasure..:)

"My hope and wish is that one day, formal education will pay attention to what I call “education of the heart.” Just as we take for granted the need to acquire proficiency in the basic academic subjects, I am hopeful that a time will come when we can take it for granted that children will learn, as part of the curriculum, the indispensability of inner values: love, compassion, justice, and forgiveness."

Dec 12 2011:
Here is what around 100 Middle School Students said should be included: (List is not in any specific order)

zero pollution: Buildings, cars, products, etc, should all be made with as little emissions into the atmosphere as possible. The life of products from creation to recycle should be thought of before introducing anything new.

green energy capturing devices should be designed into as many (if not all) types of infrastructure as possible. Bridges that operate on solar, wind and tidal energies, buildings lined with solar panels and use only the energy that they produce,

Plant life should be required in as many places that can sustain them: including apartment buildings and back yards. Producing your own food is part of any sustainable environment. Possibly give credits to those who produce as a way of encouragement.

Health care should be provided to all those in need. There should be no cost to the individual when they are sick. How to implement this is difficult, but needs to be done, because taking care of citizens should be the number one priority of any society.

Transportation should be stream lined. Bicycle and walking should be the most used forms of transportation, but buses and other forms of mass transit should be the secondary. Only if cars do not produce waste/pollution or burn fossil fuels should they be allowed. Even the materials the cars are made of should be looked at.

Robots and other forms of automation should be utilized, especially for those who are disabled or unable to do certain things.

Space exploration and other science centers should be utilized and funded to the fullest potential. Students should be able to have access to cutting edge technology, tools and information. An emphasis on exploration would give the community a goal to reach for, always looking to improve and expand their abilities and knowledge.

Dec 10 2011:
the venus project, resource based economy
we have to realize and admit that monetaryism is outdated and obsolete, stop trying to sacrifice eficiency, abundance and sustainability for econmic gain and so called opertunity.